why didn't they change the lyric??
Credibility score: 45/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "why didn't they change the lyric??" and rated it 45/100 for credibility (a BS score of 55/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-03. Its weakest claim — "Hears 'cheating' in the song — emotional button reaction" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as emotional button. 27 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 27 claims analyzed: 9 scored under 40, 12 between 40 and 69, and 6 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Sets up a competition between two kid cover brands — framing as a showdown — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:30
Straightforward framing — presents the comparison clearly without loaded language.
Why this score: The speaker defines the video's purpose as a head-to-head between Kids Bop and Mini Pop Kids, using the word 'better' to set up a fair contest rather than a loaded verdict.
Original quote: “there was tea, there was shade. We checked them out. They weren't that good, but I wanted to see who's better, Kids Bop or Mini Pop Kids with the same exact song.”
Questions the logic of a luxury car in a kids' video — calls out the mismatch — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:17
Points out the absurdity of a Porsche in a children's video — classic 'who is this for?' reaction.
Why this score: The speaker highlights the strange framing choice of featuring an expensive car in content aimed at kids who can't drive, leaving the audience wondering about the intended appeal.
Original quote: “Oh, so that's why I have the Porsche, but they were the ones that brought the Porsche. Who are they dissing?”
Hears 'cheating' in the song — emotional button reaction — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 2:52
Drops the shocked 'Hey' like the line itself is the problem — plays the morality card without showing the actual lyric.
Why this score: By reacting to an implied 'cheating' reference with audible surprise, the speaker steers the audience toward 'this song is inappropriate for kids' without quoting the lyric or explaining why it matters. Classic emotional button move — the gasp does the work.
Original quote: “They're talking about cheating, too? Hey.”
Original lyric is 'riding on my bladder' — states as fact — Missing Context (45/100)
At 5:03
Calls it 'the real lyric' with zero proof — treating their ear as gospel.
Why this score: They're presenting a misheard or altered lyric as the definitive original. Without naming the actual song or artist, listeners can't verify whether 'riding on my bladder' was ever the line, or if this is just what they thought they heard. The framing skips the step of confirming what was actually recorded.
Original quote: “Leaning on my saddle. I like that cuz you're starting the lyric with the lean, but you're changing the word. Leaning on my saddle. And also, it just makes more sense than riding on my bladder. I promise you. Like that is the real lyric, y'all.”
Changing 'cheating' to 'bestie' protects kids — moral framing — Emotional Button (35/100)
At 5:33
Assumes any mention of cheating automatically corrupts children — classic 'won't someone think of the kids' move.
Why this score: The speaker uses the loaded idea that kids are blank slates corrupted by single words. By framing the change as 'protecting the youngins,' they skip any discussion of whether children actually understand or internalize these lyrics, or whether context, delivery, and age-appropriate explanation might matter more than word swaps.
Original quote: “Chilling with my bestie, you can go and ask her instead of cheating on my baby. I think that's good, too. You know, don't promote the cheating to the youngins, right?”
Mini Pop beats Kidz Bop overall — sweeping verdict with no scoring system — Confidence Mismatch (40/100)
At 5:41
Hands Mini Pop the dub while admitting they 'don't want to rate them out of 10' — then rates them anyway.
Why this score: They explicitly say they're not doing numerical scores, then deliver a categorical win based on 'better chorus, better lyrics, less terrible singing.' The framing lets them sound definitive without ever showing the criteria or evidence that would justify calling one version objectively superior.
Original quote: “So Mini Pop Kids in terms of changing the lyrics, I I think they're doing it better. You know, not everyone is good at the choreography and everything, but hey, the music videos are a plus, right? While the music video pales in comparison to the Kids Bop one, we've seen what a good aesthetic Mini…”
Presents personal opinion as objective fact about song suitability — Opinion (75/100)
At 7:30
Calls it 'low-key works better' — just their taste dressed as analysis.
Why this score: This is a straight opinion dressed up as insight. They're taking their own preference for kid-friendly versions and presenting it as if it's an inherent quality of the song itself. No evidence given — just vibes presented as analysis.
Original quote: “this song low-key works better as a Kids Bop song cuz they're talking about, you know, getting bullied and thun- thun- thun- I'm like Imagine Dragons should just write for Kids Bop now”
Suggests band pivot based on single opinion, no industry context — Opinion (50/100)
At 7:42
Jumps from 'this one song works' to 'they should switch careers' — huge leap.
Why this score: Classic overgeneralization. One cover version landing well with kids doesn't equal a career recommendation. They're taking a narrow observation and ballooning it into career advice without any industry context or evidence this would actually work.
Original quote: “Imagine Dragons should just write for Kids Bop now. Write their original songs.”
Kids Bop wins this round — just a casual opinion, no real framing. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:40
Just a straightforward opinion on which version is better. No hidden agenda here.
Why this score: The speaker is giving their personal take on a Kids Bop song versus the original. It's a subjective judgment, not an attempt to manipulate or mislead. It's clean framing because it's presented as personal preference.
Original quote: “Bad. Kids Bop takes the dub for this”
Old info 'confirms' itself — circular logic dressed as new insight. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 9:50
Claiming old info 'confirms' itself is a bit of a logical loop, not actual confirmation.
Why this score: The speaker states that previously known information is now 'confirmed' by seeing it again. This is a confidence mismatch because simply re-encountering information doesn't confirm its veracity; it just means you've seen it twice. True confirmation would come from independent, verifiable sources, not just repetition. A neutral framing would be 'This is consistent with what I've seen before.'
Original quote: “this isn't new information, but it more so confirms the information.”
Questioning Kids Bop's self-critique — highlights a perceived internal contradiction. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:01
A fair observation about a potential inconsistency in how Kids Bop presents itself.
Why this score: The speaker is pointing out what appears to be a logical inconsistency: if the performers are part of Kids Bop, why would they rate their own performance as 'bad'? This is a straightforward observation that highlights a potential internal contradiction, inviting the viewer to consider the oddity. It's clean framing because it's a direct question based on what's shown, not an attempt to mislead.
Original quote: “Wait, why are they rating themselves bad? I'm like, aren't y'all all in Kids Bop? Are you saying that your cover of this song isn't good?”
Math framing: treats repeating decimal as exact two-thirds — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:32
6 repeating is 2/3, but 6.6666… is just an approximation — the framing hides the difference.
Why this score: They're equating an infinite decimal with a clean fraction, making the rating sound more precise than it is. A neutral framing would say 'roughly two-thirds' or pick a different number.
Original quote: “I'll give it a six out of 10 cuz like six point six six six six six repeating is like two-thirds”
Loaded language framing: calls intro sketches 'irrelevant' without evidence — Loaded Language (30/100)
At 11:05
'Irrelevant' is a judgment, not a fact — framing skips asking if the sketches serve a different purpose.
Why this score: They're assuming the only valid role for an intro is to connect directly to the song. A fairer frame would ask what the sketches are actually trying to do before labeling them pointless.
Original quote: “I just got to say like with the sketches, why did they add them when they have nothing to do with the song?”
False equivalence framing: treats both covers as equally bad despite picking a winner — False Equivalence (40/100)
At 11:29
Says both are bad, then immediately ranks one better — the 'equally terrible' framing collapses under their own ranking.
Why this score: They're trying to maintain a 'both bad' stance while admitting one is clearly preferable. A cleaner frame would just say which one works better for their taste without the forced equivalence.
Original quote: “Better than the Kids Bop one. I don't like either of them. I think because this is the first song that we're checking out today that I really like.”
Volume game framing: treats view count as meaningful popularity signal without context — Volume Game (35/100)
At 11:55
10 million views gets called 'crazy' — but no baseline for what 'normal' would be, so the surprise feels manufactured.
Why this score: They're reacting to the raw number as if it proves something surprising, without showing what the expected range should be. A neutral take would compare both versions' view counts directly or ask what drives the difference.
Original quote: “The Mini Pop version is more popular than the Kids Bop version? Woah, that's crazy.”
Kids Bop sounds robotic vs Mini Pop's 'heartfelt' singing — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 14:35
Pits 'robotic' against 'from the heart' like that's the only choice — classic loaded framing.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a binary where any audio processing equals 'robotic' and no processing equals 'heartfelt.' This ignores that both versions are produced, and the 'robotic' label is doing emotional work to steer the listener's reaction before they've even heard the comparison.
Original quote: “This one just sounds a bit more robotic and the Mini Pop Kids one it sounds like, you know, it's coming from the heart like they're actually singing, you know? Rather than it happens to be kids singing and then let's just process it like crazy.”
Taylor Swift's 'Me!' is her worst song — Confidence Mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 15:32
Calls it 'genuinely might be her worst song' with zero evidence beyond personal taste — huge confidence, tiny support.
Why this score: The speaker builds up to 'her worst song' like that's an objective ranking, but the only evidence offered is 'this song's terrible' and a vague nod to other Swift songs being bad. The framing pretends subjective dislike is close to critical consensus.
Original quote: “This song's terrible. This song honestly works better as a Kids Bop song. I I don't know what Taylor Swift was doing. And any any Swifties that are watching this video, have you seen Taylor Swift live? And did she perform this song live? And did people enjoy it? Cuz this honestly, like I get that…”
Original lyric was already kid-friendly so it 'doesn't sound bad' — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 16:18
Assumes the original line was written for kids, but 'Me!' was never aimed at children — that's doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Why this score: The speaker claims 'that part is like aimed towards children in the original song anyway,' which reframes Taylor Swift's adult pop song as if it was always kid-appropriate. This quietly erases the actual context of the song's release and audience.
Original quote: “I mean, that part is like aimed towards children in the original song anyway, so that part doesn't really sound that bad. Let's see the Mini Pop version. I don't even know what I just typed. Mini Pop. Surely there's no way this is worse. Well, the fight is worse. What is this?”
Mini Pop Kids look identical across 20 years — rhetorical exaggeration — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 16:38
Presents literal impossibility as genuine confusion — classic 'can't be real' framing.
Why this score: The rhetorical move is treating a long-running kids cover group as if their rotating roster is a single set of immortal children. By phrasing it as personal bewilderment ('I'm a little confused'), the speaker invites the viewer to share the joke while exaggerating the continuity. A neutral framing would acknowledge that cover groups routinely replace members as they age out.
Original quote: “Okay, I'm a little confused. Are there only like five Mini Pop kids? And have they just been Mini Pop kids for 20 years? And they've stayed 12?”
Questions if Mini Pop Kids are the same five kids for 20 years — rhetorical exaggeration — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 16:38
Frames the group as frozen in time like the kids are vampires — funny exaggeration but skips the rotating cast reality
Why this score: The loaded language 'they've stayed 12' paints Mini Pop Kids as a creepy unchanging lineup when the group likely rotates members like most kids cover bands. This rhetorical choice sets up the 'weird longevity' joke but ignores that the same five kids literally can't be 12 for two decades. A neutral framing would be 'the Mini Pop Kids brand has been around for 20 years with rotating child performers.'
Original quote: “Okay, I'm a little confused. Are there only like five Mini Pop kids? And have they just been Mini Pop kids for 20 years? And they've stayed 12? Because I swear she's been in every Mini Pop song that we've checked out.”
questions if same 5 kids stayed 12 for 20 years — rhetorical exaggeration — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 16:38
Frames continuity as creepy by asking if kids 'stayed 12' — plays on childhood image for effect.
Why this score: The rhetorical move is to make the group sound frozen-in-time by exaggerating their age range into a single absurd question, even though the speaker is just noticing recurring faces. This is the classic 'emotional button' technique — using a weird mental image to provoke a reaction before any facts land.
Original quote: “Okay, I'm a little confused. Are there only like five Mini Pop kids? And have they just been Mini Pop kids for 20 years? And they've stayed 12? Because I swear she's been in every Mini Pop song that we've checked out.”
Mini Pop Kids declared 'best' via arbitrary scoring — false equivalence — False Equivalence (25/100)
At 16:57
Creates fake competition with made-up 3-2 score — both options equally bad but one declared winner.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false choice: two bad covers, then arbitrarily crowns one 'best' because it was first. This is classic false equivalence — pretending a subjective opinion is an objective win. The scoring system is invented on the spot, yet treated as decisive. A neutral framing would be 'both versions are weak, but Mini Pop came first chronologically.'
Original quote: “Okay, well, these verses aren't good. So, it really depends on that chorus cuz the Kids Bop choruses were slightly better. Okay, no. It's not good either. I I can't tell which one is worse, but it doesn't matter because Mini Pop kids already won. So, whether they won 3 to 2 or four to one, it…”
declares Mini Pop winner before finishing comparison — false equivalence framing — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 17:09
Calls the contest over while admitting both versions are bad — uses 'winner' framing to avoid deeper critique.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a competition, immediately dismisses both entries as bad, then still hands Mini Pop a trophy based on 'first mover' status. This is textbook false equivalence: by pretending the choice between two weak options matters, the framing creates a winner without ever establishing meaningful criteria. The 'bragging rights and plant' joke softens the fact that the contest was never really judged.
Original quote: “Okay, no. It's not good either. I I can't tell which one is worse, but it doesn't matter because Mini Pop kids already won. So, whether they won 3 to 2 or four to one, it doesn't even matter, right? They won. So, congratulations to Mini Pop Kids. What have you won? I don't know. You can have that…”
Declaring Mini Pop winner — tongue-in-cheek trophy framing — No Frame (75/100)
At 17:13
Self-aware joke — openly admits the 'win' is meaningless.
Why this score: The speaker explicitly undercuts their own verdict by mocking the prize ('that plant that fell off'). This is transparent play-framing rather than loaded language; the audience is in on the gag that the entire comparison is arbitrary entertainment.
Original quote: “Mini Pop kids already won... They won. So, congratulations to Mini Pop Kids. What have you won? I don't know. You can have that plant that fell off.”
Calls Mini Pop Kids the first AND best kids cover group — confidence mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (30/100)
At 17:27
States Mini Pop as 'first' and 'best' with zero evidence provided for either claim
Why this score: The speaker drops 'first kids cover group' and 'best one' as definitive statements while admitting they 'don't know' what Mini Pop won and calling the whole video 'stupid science.' This is classic confidence mismatch — the certainty doesn't match the evidence shown. A neutral version would hedge with 'possibly the first' or 'subjectively the best based on this one comparison.'
Original quote: “Not only were you the first kids cover group, but you're also the best one.”
Self-aware absurdity framing — 'stupidest video ever' as ironic branding — No Frame (75/100)
At 17:32
Owns the low-stakes premise upfront — calls the whole exercise ridiculous before anyone else can.
Why this score: This is actually clean framing. Instead of pretending the comparison is serious, the speaker flags it as intentionally silly. By preemptively calling it 'the stupidest video ever,' they remove any expectation of real analysis and invite the audience to enjoy the absurdity. It's self-deprecating honesty rather than manufactured importance.
Original quote: “We're doing real science here. We're discovering very important information here, y'all. I hope you are all well aware. All right. Well, thank you so much for watching this. This is the stupidest video ever. I say that like every five videos. I think I've made the stupidest video I've ever made,…”
Calls their ranking 'real science' — ironic framing — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 17:32
Equates their informal ranking to scientific research — obvious joke, but still a false equivalence
Why this score: This is classic false equivalence wrapped in irony. By calling their ranking of children's cover groups 'real science' and 'very important information,' the speaker sets up a deliberately absurd comparison between their subjective opinion and actual scientific methodology. The neutral framing would be 'we're doing a silly ranking' or 'we're having fun with this' — which doesn't need to mock the concept of research to land the joke.
Original quote: “We're We're doing real science here. We're discovering very important information here, y'all. I hope you are all well aware.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →